Who do you want to see in the Hall in 2009?

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

Anyone you are really pushing for to get in? Personally I have a few. Rickey Henderson (but he's a surefire), Jim Rice, Tim Raines, Jack Morris, and as always, Bert Blyleven.

[mwiggins]

Henderson, Raines, and Blyleven.

[John Shoemaker]

Rickey Henderson -I'm sure he will get in this year.

Jim Rice - I think he will get in this year since it's his last year.

Andre Dawson - I'd like him to get in this year but I don't think he will. I hope he gets close enough that he gets in next year.

Mark McGwire - I hope he gets up to 50% this year and gets in in the next couple of years.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Henderson, Raines, and Blyleven.

My choices exactly

[henrich]

Henderson
Rice
Blyleven
Dawson
Lee Smith
Raines
McGwire

Only the top 2 will get in though, Blyleven may reach 70% this year though, and Dawson should get close to that too. Raines should top 35% and McGwire should get 30%. Lee Smith I'm guessing at 48%

[Mike90]

Henderson, Raines*, Blyleven**, Alan Trammel***, Mark McGwire, Tommy John, Dale Murphy

* As great a player as Tony Gwynn -- or at least really, really close -- but with more of his value in walks and baserunning rather than hitting singles.

** Better than Sutton in less helpful parks with less offensive support. Every argument that can be used to deny Blyleven's enshrinement can also be used for Nolan Ryan, save for the differing perceptions of them while they were pitching.

*** Combines good offense with very good defense, which is a recipe for being underrated because it does not attract a lot of attention.

[Homestead Gray]

The top five who I want to get into the HOF are;

1) Rice
2) Dawson
3) Henderson
4) Raines
5) Blyleven

However, I think that this is how the balloting will end up for the top five candidates though not all will get in...

Rice (77%)
Dawson (71%)
Henderson (78%)
Raines (42%)
Blyleven (54%)

The travesty in all of this is Andre Dawson. Andre was one of the most dominant players that I have ever seen. He was a sponge in CF with a cannon for an arm and was equally a terror at the plate. Two things work against Dawson and I believe that they are the injuries to his knee (the reason that his numbers are not better for his career) and the fact that he did not play in a media capital in North America (NA). His time in Chicago highlighted his ability and made baseball fans throughout NA appreciate him.

I still remember the Dawson signing with the Cubs for $500K in a contract that was loaded with performance bonuses. His performance allowed him to be paid about $2M that season.

If you look at the total package that Dawson offered and rolled that into a work ethic that I saw in the first eleven years of his career then he should in the HOF - thanks for allowing me my campaign message for Dawson

[gman5431]

I would like to see Rice get in and i think he will this year.

G Rizzle

[John Shoemaker]

The top five who I want to get into the HOF are;

1) Rice
2) Dawson
3) Henderson
4) Raines
5) Blyleven

However, I think that this is how the balloting will end up for the top five candidates though not all will get in...

Rice (77%)
Dawson (71%)
Henderson (78%)
Raines (42%)
Blyleven (54%)

The travesty in all of this is Andre Dawson. Andre was one of the most dominant players that I have ever seen. He was a sponge in CF with a cannon for an arm and was equally a terror at the plate. Two things work against Dawson and I believe that they are the injuries to his knee (the reason that his numbers are not better for his career) and the fact that he did not play in a media capital in North America (NA). His time in Chicago highlighted his ability and made baseball fans throughout NA appreciate him.

I still remember the Dawson signing with the Cubs for $500K in a contract that was loaded with performance bonuses. His performance allowed him to be paid about $2M that season.

If you look at the total package that Dawson offered and rolled that into a work ethic that I saw in the first eleven years of his career then he should in the HOF - thanks for allowing me my campaign message for Dawson

I completely agree with everything you said about Dawson. I wish he would get in this year but I'm afraid he won't. Hopefully he will make it next year. IMO he's better than a lot of players in the HOF.

[Captain Cold Nose]

The top five who I want to get into the HOF are;

1) Rice
2) Dawson
3) Henderson
4) Raines
5) Blyleven

However, I think that this is how the balloting will end up for the top five candidates though not all will get in...

Rice (77%)
Dawson (71%)
Henderson (78%)
Raines (42%)
Blyleven (54%)

The travesty in all of this is Andre Dawson. Andre was one of the most dominant players that I have ever seen. He was a sponge in CF with a cannon for an arm and was equally a terror at the plate. Two things work against Dawson and I believe that they are the injuries to his knee (the reason that his numbers are not better for his career) and the fact that he did not play in a media capital in North America (NA). His time in Chicago highlighted his ability and made baseball fans throughout NA appreciate him.

I still remember the Dawson signing with the Cubs for $500K in a contract that was loaded with performance bonuses. His performance allowed him to be paid about $2M that season.

If you look at the total package that Dawson offered and rolled that into a work ethic that I saw in the first eleven years of his career then he should in the HOF - thanks for allowing me my campaign message for Dawson

You think Blyleven will lose support?

I'd love to see Raines top 40% in just his second year on the ballot. That's right, just his second year, not years of being snubbed. If he does, that bode well for his eventual well-deserved election.

I could support all five of your top 5. I wouldn't mind seeing Lee Smith draw some good support and hope the writers' days of "punishing" Mark McGwire are over.

[mwiggins]

I completely agree with everything you said about Dawson. I wish he would get in this year but I'm afraid he won't. Hopefully he will make it next year. IMO he's better than a lot of players in the HOF.

I wouldn't probably put Dawson in, but he's got a lot better case than Rice IMO. Of course, Raines has a lot better case than Dawson. Dawson was a clear cut HoFer before his knee injuries slowed him down. He's interesting in that he played in a park that underrated his peak, and then switched to a park that overrated his decline years. His road numbers in 1981 and 1983 are really, really impressive, esp given his defensive skills and steals.

Home/Road Splits:
1981: Home (.255/.339/.460/127 OPS+)/Road (.351/.393/.649/203 OPS+)
1983: Home (.272/.324/.453/110 OPS+)/Road (.322/.351/.615/173 OPS+)

[Fuzzy Bear]

The top five who I want to get into the HOF are;

1) Rice
2) Dawson
3) Henderson
4) Raines
5) Blyleven

However, I think that this is how the balloting will end up for the top five candidates though not all will get in...

Rice (77%)
Dawson (71%)
Henderson (78%)
Raines (42%)
Blyleven (54%)

The travesty in all of this is Andre Dawson. Andre was one of the most dominant players that I have ever seen. He was a sponge in CF with a cannon for an arm and was equally a terror at the plate. Two things work against Dawson and I believe that they are the injuries to his knee (the reason that his numbers are not better for his career) and the fact that he did not play in a media capital in North America (NA). His time in Chicago highlighted his ability and made baseball fans throughout NA appreciate him.

I still remember the Dawson signing with the Cubs for $500K in a contract that was loaded with performance bonuses. His performance allowed him to be paid about $2M that season.

If you look at the total package that Dawson offered and rolled that into a work ethic that I saw in the first eleven years of his career then he should in the HOF - thanks for allowing me my campaign message for Dawson

Dawson is a guy who will get in on his 14th or 15th try. Like Rice, he will build support as the "now-or-never" factor comes more into play.

I want to see Mark McGwire inducted this year. I'm tired of the nauseating sanctimony about PEDs, and the misdirected nonsense on the issue aimed at McGwire (whose use of Creatine was perfectly legal and within BBWAA rules).

[adarowski]

Henderson (78%)

Really? That strikes me as REALLY low for Henderson.

Who do I THINK will get in?

1) Henderson
2) Rice

Add who I really WANT?

3) Blyleven
4) Raines

And who I think SHOULD, but I'm not over the top crazy about (Rice also would be on this list):

5) Dawson
6) John
7) Lee Smith

And the asterisk:

8) McGwire

Basically, I think if McGwire is allowed to make it to the ballot, you gotta vote on his career. It isn't the voter's obligation to decide if he's guilty. It's those who make the ballot.

I'm still undecided on Trammell... I go back and forth.

(Haven't posted in a long time, but been reading... this site is so freakin' great...)

[Paul Wendt]

8) McGwire

Basically, I think if McGwire is allowed to make it to the ballot, you gotta vote on his career. It isn't the voter's obligation to decide if he's guilty. It's those who make the ballot.
just the opposite, I believe. The voters should make the judgments about character, sportsmanship, whatever they call it. --not the screening committee

[SavoyBG]

The top five who I want to get into the HOF are;

1) Rice
2) Dawson
3) Henderson
4) Raines
5) Blyleven

However, I think that this is how the balloting will end up for the top five candidates though not all will get in...

Rice (77%)
Dawson (71%)
Henderson (78%)
Raines (42%)
Blyleven (54%)

The travesty in all of this is Andre Dawson. Andre was one of the most dominant players that I have ever seen. He was a sponge in CF with a cannon for an arm and was equally a terror at the plate. Two things work against Dawson and I believe that they are the injuries to his knee (the reason that his numbers are not better for his career) and the fact that he did not play in a media capital in North America (NA). His time in Chicago highlighted his ability and made baseball fans throughout NA appreciate him.

I still remember the Dawson signing with the Cubs for $500K in a contract that was loaded with performance bonuses. His performance allowed him to be paid about $2M that season.

If you look at the total package that Dawson offered and rolled that into a work ethic that I saw in the first eleven years of his career then he should in the HOF - thanks for allowing me my campaign message for Dawson

If Henderson only gets 78% of the vote it will be an embarassment. The guy is the all time leader in runs scored and stolen bases (by a ton) and has over 3,000 hits. There's no way he gets less than 85% of the vote, and more likely will get well over 90% of the vote.

As for Dawson, I can't agree with inducting him. A career OPS+ of just 119 and a pretty poor career OBP of just .323 is not so great for a RFer, or even a CFer. HIs peak was nothing special. He never even had 30 win shares in a season. Bill James has him 19th among RFers and that was after the 2001 season. By now Sheffield would be ahead of him, and maybe some others. Certainly Manny Ramirez would be ahead of him too, as Manny would still be considered a RFer at this point. Suzuki and Vlad Guererro will probably rank ahead of Dawson too before long.

An excellent career, but not quite a hall of famer for me.

[csh19792001]

Q: Who do you want to see in the Hall in 2009?

A: Absolutes: Bill Dahlen, Keith Hernandez, Tim Raines, Barry Larkin, Ron Santo.

Dawson and Rice certainly aren't among the greatest 200 or so to ever play the game. They were both largely products of their parks. I hope neither get in.

[SavoyBG]

Q: Who do you want to see in the Hall in 2009?

Dawson and Rice certainly aren't among the greatest 200 or so to ever play the game. They were both largely products of their parks. I hope neither get in.

I'm with you, but I'm pretty sure Rice is getting in this time.

[Cowtipper]

Henderson, Blyleven, Dawson, Raines, Smith, McGwire, Parker (not going to happen, I know)

Give me two out of those seven and I'll be happy.

[BlueBlood]

An excellent career, but not quite a hall of famer for me.

I've said no to Dawson, yes to Dawson, no to Dawson, yes to Dawson. Now I'm saying "no" again. He's the epitome of a borderline candidate for me.

[Mongoose]

Every argument that can be used to deny Blyleven's enshrinement can also be used for Nolan Ryan, save for the differing perceptions of them while they were pitching.

Sure... Every single argument... Except:

1) Ryan struck out 5714 hitters - or roughly 1000 more than the next closest guy on the list.

2) Ryan actually hit the milestone of 300 wins... 324 to be exact... Blyleven won 287... The amount of room that separates Ryan from Blyleven is roughly the same amount of room that separates Blyleven from guys like Jack Quinn, Jamie Moyer and Dennis Martinez.

3) Ryan allowed 6.56 hits per 9IP - he was the hardest pitcher to hit in history.

4) Ryan co-held the ML record for most strikeouts in a 9 inning game (19) for years.

5) Ryan holds the ML record for most seasons with over 200 strikeouts (15)

6) Ryan holds the ML record for most seasons with over 300 strikeouts (6)

6) Ryan holds the ML record for most strikeouts in a season (383).

7) Ryan has a black ink score of 84 compared to Blyleven's 16

8) Ryan's HOF monitor score is 257.5 to Blyleven's 120.5

9) Ryan's 27 years of ML service is a record

10) Ryan was the fastest recorded pitcher in history.

11) Only Cy Young started more Major League games than Ryan

12) Ryan pitched 7 no-hitters to Blyleven's 1

But other than these factors and numerous others that would take too long to list...

I think you make a learned point here.

[Mike90]

Sure... Every single argument... Except:

1) Ryan struck out 5714 hitters - or roughly 1000 more than the next closest guy on the list.

2) Ryan actually hit the milestone of 300 wins... 324 to be exact... Blyleven won 287... The amount of room that separates Ryan from Blyleven is roughly the same amount of room that separates Blyleven from guys like Jack Quinn, Jamie Moyer and Dennis Martinez.

3) Ryan allowed 6.56 hits per 9IP - he was the hardest pitcher to hit in history.

4) Ryan co-held the ML record for most strikeouts in a 9 inning game (19) for years.

5) Ryan holds the ML record for most seasons with over 200 strikeouts (15)

6) Ryan holds the ML record for most seasons with over 300 strikeouts (6)

6) Ryan holds the ML record for most strikeouts in a season (383).

7) Ryan has a black ink score of 84 compared to Blyleven's 16

8) Ryan's HOF monitor score is 257.5 to Blyleven's 120.5

9) Ryan's 27 years of ML service is a record

10) Ryan was the fastest recorded pitcher in history.

11) Only Cy Young started more Major League games than Ryan

12) Ryan pitched 7 no-hitters to Blyleven's 1

But other than these factors and numerous others that would take too long to list...

I think you make a learned point here.

Yet again, you disagree with your own misinterpretation of what I said. If I had said, "Nolan Ryan does not own any major league records," or, "Nolan Ryan has not done a bunch of freakishly amazing things in his career," then your 12-point list would have made sense. Unfortunately, what I actually said was, "Every argument that can be used to deny Blyleven's enshrinement can also be used for Nolan Ryan, save for the differing perceptions of them while they were pitching."

And what exactly are the arguments that can be used to deny Blyleven's enshrinement:

1. Blyleven lost too many games in his career and has a mediocre WL%
Blyleven lost 250 games in his career and has only a .534 WL%. That's not too impressive and would be one of the lowest winning percentages for a HOF starter. However, Nolan Ryan lost 292 games and has an even lower winning percentage than Blyleven with a .526. Ryan's supporters point out that his teams' below average offenses dragged down Ryan's WL%, which is also true for Blyleven.

2. Blyleven did not have enough 20-win seasons
He only had one. Ryan only had two. Also, the 19-7 and 17-5 records that Blyleven posted in 1984 and 1989 respectively were much better than any single-season record that Ryan ever had.

3. Blyleven never won a Cy Young
Guess who else never won a Cy Young? Unlike Ryan, Blyleven probably had at least one season where he was the league's best pitcher (1973).

You point out that Ryan struck out a staggering 5714 batters, over 2000 more Ks than Blyleven. Ryan also had 2795 walks, which is staggering in a different way. Ryan walked almost 1500 more batters than Blyleven, and as a result, Ryan WHIP (1.247) is worse than Blyleven's (1.198).

Ryan has a better ERA than Blyleven (3.19 to 3.31), but all of that difference is due to park effects and Ryan playing more time in the NL than Blyleven. Blyleven's road ERA (3.34) is much better than Ryan's (3.73), explaining why Blyleven has a significantly better ERA+ (118 to 111).

Ryan is a great pitcher; in context, Blyleven is probably a little better*. I'm not saying Blyleven needs to become a beloved legend like Ryan, but I don't think the Hall is too much to ask for.

* Actually, it's not clear to me how much impact each pitcher's respective defenses had on their ERAs. Matt's PCA system values Ryan as being as great as his rep because his defenses were, according to PCA, crap. If I remember correctly, PCA has Blyleven as being clearly a HOF-caliber pitcher but inferior to Ryan. Either way, Mongoose didn't mention defense, and Blyleven should be enshrined no matter what way you evaluate him.

[KCGHOST]

Henderson-Raines-Blyleven are the real deals in this elections. Dawson wouldn't be a bad. Electing Rice won't be the the worse thing that ever happened, but you hate to see guys with better careers have to wait because of it.

[jjpm74]

Outside of the no-brainer (Henderson), I'd also like to see Tim Raines and Bert Blyleven elected this year. Both have a realistic shot.

I also like Mark McGwire, Andre Dawson and Alan Trammell but am not as optimistic about seeing them elected.

If Jim Rice is elected, he wouldn't be the worst choice, but I definitely don't support his cause.

[curveball]

1) Ryan struck out 5714 hitters - or roughly 1000 more than the next closest guy on the list.

Ryan also walked 962 more batters than the next closest guy on the list.


2) Ryan actually hit the milestone of 300 wins... 324 to be exact... Blyleven won 287... The amount of room that separates Ryan from Blyleven is roughly the same amount of room that separates Blyleven from guys like Jack Quinn, Jamie Moyer and Dennis Martinez.

Ryan had an actual W/L record of 324-292 for a .526 %, which is worse than Blyleven's 287-250 .534%.

Neutralize their records, and Ryan loses goes to 320-259 for a .553%, and Blyleven moves to 325-227 .589%.

So Ryan only has more actual wins, but a lower actual winning %, a lower neutralized win total, and a lower neutralized win %.

It is clear that both pitchers pitched better than their actual records, but Blyleven's neutralized records show how much better he actually was had he received average run support over his entire career.


3) Ryan allowed 6.56 hits per 9IP - he was the hardest pitcher to hit in history.

Ryan had a career whip of 1.247. Blyleven had a career whip of 1.198. Blyleven had a better career whip. You simply cannot ignore the enormous amount of batters that Ryan walked.


4) Ryan co-held the ML record for most strikeouts in a 9 inning game (19) for years.

I can't deny that he was a strikeout machine, but he was also a walk machine. How many walk records does Ryan have?


5) Ryan holds the ML record for most seasons with over 200 strikeouts (15)

Ryan also walked over 200 hitters twice, which I believe is a record in the modern era.


6) Ryan holds the ML record for most seasons with over 300 strikeouts (6)

Ryan walked 204, 202, 183, 162, and 157 batters, and I am sure you can find some walk records there.


6) Ryan holds the ML record for most strikeouts in a season (383).

Ryan was just 4 walks short of the Bob Feller's 208 in 1938.


7) Ryan has a black ink score of 84 compared to Blyleven's 16

Blank ink doesn't account for whip, and Ryan doesn't suffer at all for all the walks he issued.


8) Ryan's HOF monitor score is 257.5 to Blyleven's 120.5

This assesses how likely a player will be elected, but not how deserving a player is. We all know that there are much better ways to judge a player's career than any one of James' 4 creations. (Black Ink, Gray Ink, HOF Standards, HOF Monitor)


9) Ryan's 27 years of ML service is a record

Ryan only had a career era+ of 111. He did pitch 416 more innings than Blyleven, but that still wouldn't account for Blyleven's advantage at 118. Don Sutton only pitched 23 years, and he had a career era+ of 108, with only 100 less innings pitched.


10) Ryan was the fastest recorded pitcher in history.

Maybe he should have slowed it down a little, and found the strike zone more often.


11) Only Cy Young started more Major League games than Ryan

773 games started is impressive.


12) Ryan pitched 7 no-hitters to Blyleven's 1

Ryan was definitely one of the toughest pitchers to hit. I don't deny that, but you cannot overlook the walks. Did he ever pitch a perfect game? No, because he always walked a ton of batters. Which performance is better? A no-hitter with 5 walks, or a 2 hitter with no walks?


But other than these factors and numerous others that would take too long to list...

I think you make a learned point here.[/QUOTE]


Ryan did win 2 adjusted era+ titles, but Blyleven won once. Ryan only had 7 top 10 adjusted era+ finishes in 27 years, but Blyleven had 12 in only 22 years. I sound like a broken record, but you cannot ignore all the walks Ryan issued, and his career era+ of 111, despite all the innings is not as impressive as Blyleven's 118.

There are many arguments that can be made that Blyleven was better than Ryan. There are also those that believe that Ryan was better, but somebody definitely wouldn't look foolish making the argument that Blyleven was better. This just shows how underrated Blyleven is when he is still struggling to make the HoF, while Ryan was a first ballot enshrinee.

[d32123]

Well when my dad was young him and a few friends heckled Jim Rice at Yankee Stadium. He flipped them off. :D

So I really want Rice to get in, so my dad can say he was flipped off by a HOFer.

[Mongoose]

Yet again, you disagree with your own misinterpretation of what I said. If I had said, "Nolan Ryan does not own any major league records," or, "Nolan Ryan has not done a bunch of freakishly amazing things in his career," then your 12-point list would have made sense. Unfortunately, what I actually said was, "Every argument that can be used to deny Blyleven's enshrinement can also be used for Nolan Ryan, save for the differing perceptions of them while they were pitching."

And what exactly are the arguments that can be used to deny Blyleven's enshrinement:

1. Blyleven lost too many games in his career and has a mediocre WL%
Blyleven lost 250 games in his career and has only a .534 WL%. That's not too impressive and would be one of the lowest winning percentages for a HOF starter. However, Nolan Ryan lost 292 games and has an even lower winning percentage than Blyleven with a .526. Ryan's supporters point out that his teams' below average offenses dragged down Ryan's WL%, which is also true for Blyleven.

2. Blyleven did not have enough 20-win seasons
He only had one. Ryan only had two. Also, the 19-7 and 17-5 records that Blyleven posted in 1984 and 1989 respectively were much better than any single-season record that Ryan ever had.

3. Blyleven never won a Cy Young
Guess who else never won a Cy Young? Unlike Ryan, Blyleven probably had at least one season where he was the league's best pitcher (1973).

You point out that Ryan struck out a staggering 5714 batters, over 2000 more Ks than Blyleven. Ryan also had 2795 walks, which is staggering in a different way. Ryan walked almost 1500 more batters than Blyleven, and as a result, Ryan WHIP (1.247) is worse than Blyleven's (1.198).

Ryan has a better ERA than Blyleven (3.19 to 3.31), but all of that difference is due to park effects and Ryan playing more time in the NL than Blyleven. Blyleven's road ERA (3.34) is much better than Ryan's (3.73), explaining why Blyleven has a significantly better ERA+ (118 to 111).

Ryan is a great pitcher; in context, Blyleven is probably a little better*. I'm not saying Blyleven needs to become a beloved legend like Ryan, but I don't think the Hall is too much to ask for.

* Actually, it's not clear to me how much impact each pitcher's respective defenses had on their ERAs. Matt's PCA system values Ryan as being as great as his rep because his defenses were, according to PCA, crap. If I remember correctly, PCA has Blyleven as being clearly a HOF-caliber pitcher but inferior to Ryan. Either way, Mongoose didn't mention defense, and Blyleven should be enshrined no matter what way you evaluate him.

Actually the main obstacle to Blyleven's election is that he was never perceived as being dominant. Rightly or wrongly, people lump him in with guys like Kaat and John as an accumulator.

That's the main argument against Blyleven's election. I've never heard anyone accuse Ryan of not being dominant... But you say "every argument that can be used to deny Blyleven's enshrinement can also be used for Nolan Ryan, save for the differing perceptions of them while they were pitching"... So I suppose then you must agree with the notion that Ryan wasn't dominant...

[Mongoose]

1) Ryan struck out 5714 hitters - or roughly 1000 more than the next closest guy on the list.

Ryan also walked 962 more batters than the next closest guy on the list.


2) Ryan actually hit the milestone of 300 wins... 324 to be exact... Blyleven won 287... The amount of room that separates Ryan from Blyleven is roughly the same amount of room that separates Blyleven from guys like Jack Quinn, Jamie Moyer and Dennis Martinez.

Ryan had an actual W/L record of 324-292 for a .526 %, which is worse than Blyleven's 287-250 .534%.

Neutralize their records, and Ryan loses goes to 320-259 for a .553%, and Blyleven moves to 325-227 .589%.

So Ryan only has more actual wins, but a lower actual winning %, a lower neutralized win total, and a lower neutralized win %.

It is clear that both pitchers pitched better than their actual records, but Blyleven's neutralized records show how much better he actually was had he received average run support over his entire career.


3) Ryan allowed 6.56 hits per 9IP - he was the hardest pitcher to hit in history.

Ryan had a career whip of 1.247. Blyleven had a career whip of 1.198. Blyleven had a better career whip. You simply cannot ignore the enormous amount of batters that Ryan walked.


4) Ryan co-held the ML record for most strikeouts in a 9 inning game (19) for years.

I can't deny that he was a strikeout machine, but he was also a walk machine. How many walk records does Ryan have?


5) Ryan holds the ML record for most seasons with over 200 strikeouts (15)

Ryan also walked over 200 hitters twice, which I believe is a record in the modern era.


6) Ryan holds the ML record for most seasons with over 300 strikeouts (6)

Ryan walked 204, 202, 183, 162, and 157 batters, and I am sure you can find some walk records there.


6) Ryan holds the ML record for most strikeouts in a season (383).

Ryan was just 4 walks short of the Bob Feller's 208 in 1938.


7) Ryan has a black ink score of 84 compared to Blyleven's 16

Blank ink doesn't account for whip, and Ryan doesn't suffer at all for all the walks he issued.


8) Ryan's HOF monitor score is 257.5 to Blyleven's 120.5

This assesses how likely a player will be elected, but not how deserving a player is. We all know that there are much better ways to judge a player's career than any one of James' 4 creations. (Black Ink, Gray Ink, HOF Standards, HOF Monitor)


9) Ryan's 27 years of ML service is a record

Ryan only had a career era+ of 111. He did pitch 416 more innings than Blyleven, but that still wouldn't account for Blyleven's advantage at 118. Don Sutton only pitched 23 years, and he had a career era+ of 108, with only 100 less innings pitched.


10) Ryan was the fastest recorded pitcher in history.

Maybe he should have slowed it down a little, and found the strike zone more often.


11) Only Cy Young started more Major League games than Ryan

773 games started is impressive.


12) Ryan pitched 7 no-hitters to Blyleven's 1

Ryan was definitely one of the toughest pitchers to hit. I don't deny that, but you cannot overlook the walks. Did he ever pitch a perfect game? No, because he always walked a ton of batters. Which performance is better? A no-hitter with 5 walks, or a 2 hitter with no walks?


But other than these factors and numerous others that would take too long to list...

I think you make a learned point here.


Ryan did win 2 adjusted era+ titles, but Blyleven won once. Ryan only had 7 top 10 adjusted era+ finishes in 27 years, but Blyleven had 12 in only 22 years. I sound like a broken record, but you cannot ignore all the walks Ryan issued, and his career era+ of 111, despite all the innings is not as impressive as Blyleven's 118.

There are many arguments that can be made that Blyleven was better than Ryan. There are also those that believe that Ryan was better, but somebody definitely wouldn't look foolish making the argument that Blyleven was better. This just shows how underrated Blyleven is when he is still struggling to make the HoF, while Ryan was a first ballot enshrinee.

I'm not comparing Ryan and Blyleven; I'm saying they're apples and oranges and their cases for the Hall of Fame are very different... Ryan's W-L record was a smallish factor; the bulk of his case was a string of records and dominating statistics that Blyleven did not have... So it's a pointless comparison.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Well when my dad was young him and a few friends heckled Jim Rice at Yankee Stadium. He flipped them off. :D

So I really want Rice to get in, so my dad can say he was flipped off by a HOFer.

But an undeserving one. :hide:

I was a Jim Rice fan when he played and for that I'll be happy when he's elected. (Those thinking he won't be haven't been paying attention to what has actually been happening.) But I know there's better players who'll be well short.

That's not his fault, though. He also didn't march on Poland in 1938 as some people would try to get you to believe.

[curveball]

I'm not comparing Ryan and Blyleven; I'm saying they're apples and oranges and their cases for the Hall of Fame are very different... Ryan's W-L record was a smallish factor; the bulk of his case was a string of records and dominating statistics that Blyleven did not have... So it's a pointless comparison.

Ryan was a dominant pitcher as far as strikeouts are concerned, but you simply cannot overlook the walks, which is why some people believe that Ryan is one of the most overrated pitchers in history.

He only had one really phenomenal season, 1981, when he had an era+ of 194, but that was in only 21 starts. Blyleven, despite not being dominant in some peoples' eyes had a higher peak than Ryan.

Strikeouts only tell one part of the story. In my opinion, whip paints a much better picture because it also incorporates walks, and Ryan suffers quite a bit when you look at his whip.

Ryan was a much better strikeout pitcher, and was tougher to hit as far as baa is concerned, but I believe Blyleven was the much more complete pitcher, and did more things better than Ryan. They are both first ballot Hofers in my opinion.

[curveball]

Mongoose,

There was a poll in the History of the Game forum on who was better, Blyleven or Ryan, and the majority were on Blyleven's side. The posters on this forum are much more astute than the BBWAA.

http://baseball-fever.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=6275

[Mongoose]

Mongoose,

There was a poll in the History of the Game forum on who was better, Blyleven or Ryan, and the majority were on Blyleven's side. The posters on this forum are much more astute than the BBWAA.

http://baseball-fever.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=6275


Once again, I'm not making any judgement as to which pitcher was or wasn't better. I'm saying their careers played out very differently, their cases for the Hall of Fame are very different...

Ryan is in the Hall for specific reasons.

Blyleven's case rests on a completely different argument.

To say that "every argument that can be used to deny Blyleven's enshrinement can also be used for Nolan Ryan" ignores the reasons Ryan is actually in the Hall... It is therefore an ill-informed statement.

But I wasn't addressing who was or wasn't better...

[curveball]

Once again, I'm not making any judgement as to which pitcher was or wasn't better. I'm saying their careers played out very differently, their cases for the Hall of Fame are very different...

Ryan is in the Hall for specific reasons.

Blyleven's case rests on a completely different argument.

To say that "every argument that can be used to deny Blyleven's enshrinement can also be used for Nolan Ryan" ignores the reasons Ryan is actually in the Hall... It is therefore an ill-informed statement.

But I wasn't addressing who was or wasn't better...


I didn't say that "every argument that can be used to deny Blyleven's enshrinement can also be used for Nolan Ryan" ignores the reasons Ryan is actually in the Hall... It is therefore an ill-informed statement.

I think that whoever said this was relating to the fact that both pitchers do not have impressive career w/l %. Blyleven's is still better than Ryans. Of course, they both clearly deserved better, which shows when their stats are neutralized. Their career era+ are impressive, but don't appear so because of the tremendous amount of innings they pitched. Again, Blyleven has the better career era+ of 118 compared to Ryan's 111. They are both part of the 3,000 strikeout club. Ryan has 61 career shutouts, and Blyleven 60. They do have some similarities, and are both no-brainer Hofers in my book.

[csh19792001]

3) Ryan allowed 6.56 hits per 9IP - he was the hardest pitcher to hit in history.


He was far and away the hardest pitcher in history to hit with the bases empty. Brett stumbled upon some pretty incredible stuff recently.


Ryan does have a case as having the best stuff in history. Take a look, for example, at BA, OB% and Slg% allowed with the bases empty:

Ryan: .191/.298/.279
Pedro: .209/.270/.340
Maddux: .241/.275/.345
Randy Johnson: .213/.290/.342
Koufax: .202/.268/.314
Clemens: .228/.288/.343

One on one, pitcher versus batter, Ryan may have been the best in history, but not only did he struggle with men on base, but for the struggles, he still allowed a 75% steal rate.

It explains in part the no hitters, and one hitters. He was great at preventing hits, as long as he was keeping men off the bases (a tautology?).

.279 slugging against!!! And that's over a 27 year career, pitching till he was 45. The guy just might have had the best stuff ever.

[Mike90]

This is what I said: "Every argument that can be used to deny Blyleven's enshrinement can also be used for Nolan Ryan, save for the differing perceptions of them while they were pitching." Notice what I bolded.

Actually the main obstacle to Blyleven's election is that he was never perceived as being dominant.

I realize that Ryan and Blyleven were perceived as being different quality pitchers while they were pitching. That is why I said there were differing perceptions of them while they were pitching. Either you:

a) don't know that perceive is the verb form of perception,

b) did not read that sentence's qualifier despite quoting that particular sentence 3 times,

c) or you are deliberately misconstruing what I said. I'm not entirely sure why you would do this, but it seems like that is what you're doing. Oh, well.

That's the main argument against Blyleven's election. I've never heard anyone accuse Ryan of not being dominant... But you say ... So I suppose then you must agree with the notion that Ryan wasn't dominant...

:banghead: When did I ever say Ryan wasn't dominant? I said he was a great pitcher. It's right there in the passage you quoted, and I'm not sure how you missed it.

I stand by my original thesis. There does not seem to be any argument to be used against Blyleven's enshrinement that can't be used against Ryan aside from the fact that Ryan is considered a legend while Blyleven is not. Not enough 20-win seasons, mediocre career winning percentage, no Cy Youngs -- all of those reasons are cited by writers to keep Blyleven out, and they all apply to Ryan.

And before you accuse me of being ignorant or something, I know Ryan is considered one of the greatest pitchers ever. I know he was the leading vote-getter among pitchers for the all-century team, that he sailed into the HOF on the 1st ballot with the 2nd highest voting % in history, and that he was at one point the highest paid player ever. However, a lot of people believing something is true does not necessarily mean it is true. I think the conventional wisdom is wrong in this case and that Blyleven is just as great, if not a little bit greater, than Ryan. I could be wrong too, but my conclusion seems to be the most likely given their respective statistical records.

[willshad]

While it is true that all of the negatives against Blyleven can also be used against Ryan, it is also true that Ryan has all the positives that can outweigh them. He stands out among his contemporaries (and among all pitchers in history in fact) due to his difficulty to hit and strikeout feats. He is in the hall DESPITE his won/loss record. Blyleven really doesnt have anything to make him stand out, to offset the negatives. No Cy Youngs, no records, no milestones. Sure he had a good, long career, but what about him makes you say 'wow this guy has GOT to be honored in the hall of fame!'? Really there is nothing.